IN his response to Andrew Collingwood, David Lyon justifies Israel's nuclear arsenal by reiterating the official Israeli line - that it needs to protect itself from hostile neighbours and, in some cases, goes further than standard apologists for Israeli policy (April 6).
For instance, Mr Lyon tells us that Arab neighbours attacked Israel in 1967, although it is hardly in dispute that Israel started the war, attacking Egypt on June 5.
What is generally debated is whether or not Israel's first strike can be justified as a pre-emptive attack.
Mr Lyon points out that Israel has enemies in the Middle East but fails to mention crucial details.
Israel is illegally occupying Palestinian and Syrian territory and is obligated by the Security Council to withdraw.
Major Arab states have long supported a peaceful settlement involving Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories and the establishment of a Palestinian state.
In this context Israeli nuclear policy must be interpreted not as a means to "protect its very existence" from threatening neighbours but as a means to project its power over the region, maintaining brutal control over territory acquired by war and, in the process, denying Palestinian rights to self-determination.
If we object to this state of affairs it is up to us to do something to change it, such as boycotting Israeli goods, for instance.
Ed Lewis,
Member of York PSC and Student Action For Palestine,
St Clements Grove,
South Bank,
York.
Updated: 09:54 Friday, April 09, 2004
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article